Recommended Posts

A decently thought-out opinion on why the Chinese have not yet crushed Hong Kong's relentless demonstrators. as well as a reiteration of China being a fascist, not communist state.

We should not imagine that his planned empire would be communist: China’s government has only retained the name “Communist Party” because to do otherwise would be a first step towards admitting the atrocities of the past. The severing of the link between Xi and Mao would make it possible to acknowledge that Mao was one of history’s worst villains. This would set a precedent for criticising authority that would inevitably lead to Xi’s own downfall. So the name stays, but in truth there is nothing “communist” about this Communist Party (save its authoritarianism). In fact, Marxist students, activists, and social workers have been arrested and tortured since Xi took power, and universities have shut down Marxist societies.

As Simon Leitch has noted in an essay for Quillette, the Chinese government is actually fascist. This term is widely used in a hyperbolic sense today, but Leitch explains that the word originally meant a political system with three distinct features: authoritarianism, ethnonationalism, and “an economic model in which capitalism co-existed with large state-directed industries and partnerships between the government and corporations.” Here we have a perfect description of the current regime in Beijing (and if we need more evidence, we should remind ourselves that this regime also imprisons people in concentration camps for having the ‘wrong’ ethnicity). The Communist Party is fascist—in the literal, technical sense.

I agree with much of this, but one must be careful to remember that both Canada and the USA has imprisoned people for being of the wrong ethnicity. We have also blocked immigration of Chinese (the Exclusion Act) based on nothing but ethnicity.

Share on other sites

The same thing it meant in post revolutionary France where the terms were first used in the context of governance.

Quote

Further, do you believe that there are only two cardinal directions on your political compass? Not meaning to be judgmental (at this point), just curious.

According to the original meaning of the terms right and left the context is strictly about governance and the arrangement of power. It has nothing to to do with ideology. It became ideological when somewhere along the way conservatives decided to ingratiate themselves with the powerful wealthy people who've benefited greatly from this obsequiousness.

It's the same in all human societies where most governance is simply an endless struggle between the innies and the outies. When societies collapse as they all do, the innies shrink in numbers until the outies are big enough in number to complete the cycle. Rinse and repeat as they say.

I think humans are mostly progressive by nature and conservatism is simply that little voice inside us that says be careful. You know the cycle is coming to its inevitable conclusion when that voice is given a megaphone.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Can you name a single state of any race or ethnicity at that time which was NOT racist? I mean, yes, we condoned slavery once, but that does not suggest we should condone it in other states today.

I will argue that there is not a single state NOW that is not racist. It is a human trait related to selectivity in any animal. Being politically correct and trying to signal virtue by denying racism is simply not realistic.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I will argue that there is not a single state NOW that is not racist. It is a human trait related to selectivity in any animal. Being politically correct and trying to signal virtue by denying racism is simply not realistic.

Share on other sites

I will argue that there is not a single state NOW that is not racist. It is a human trait related to selectivity in any animal. Being politically correct and trying to signal virtue by denying racism is simply not realistic.

I think it depends on how you define racism. By its dictionary definition, there are few racist states. But the term has come to mean, in popular use, virtually any preference for your own group or against any other group, even if that other group is not a race (ie, Muslims). It has supplanted words like bigotry and prejudice in almost all contexts.

I would say all Muslim states are, if not racist (and some are) then given to the same behaviour towards non-Muslims as a racist state would have towards members not of their race. I think the Russian state is clearly racist in its belief in white superiority and the Chinese in their belief in Han Chinese superiority. Most other behaviours are based on prejudice (justified or not) towards other groups and peoples.

In the West I don't see any state sanctioned racism, or even prejudice. And there are few actual racists (as opposed to people with prejudice/bigotry). I don't think any non-white country would countenance the importation of millions of people not of their race to the point they themselves are minorities in their capital cities.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The same thing it meant in post revolutionary France where the terms were first used in the context of governance.

According to the original meaning of the terms right and left the context is strictly about governance and the arrangement of power. It has nothing to to do with ideology. It became ideological when somewhere along the way conservatives decided to ingratiate themselves with the powerful wealthy people who've benefited greatly from this obsequiousness.

It's the same in all human societies where most governance is simply an endless struggle between the innies and the outies. When societies collapse as they all do, the innies shrink in numbers until the outies are big enough in number to complete the cycle. Rinse and repeat as they say.

I think humans are mostly progressive by nature and conservatism is simply that little voice inside us that says be careful. You know the cycle is coming to its inevitable conclusion when that voice is given a megaphone.

So, for example: the Bolivarian revolution of Venezuela is from the left or the right???

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think it depends on how you define racism. By its dictionary definition, there are few racist states. But the term has come to mean, in popular use, virtually any preference for your own group or against any other group, even if that other group is not a race (ie, Muslims). It has supplanted words like bigotry and prejudice in almost all contexts.

I would say all Muslim states are, if not racist (and some are) then given to the same behaviour towards non-Muslims as a racist state would have towards members not of their race. I think the Russian state is clearly racist in its belief in white superiority and the Chinese in their belief in Han Chinese superiority. Most other behaviours are based on prejudice (justified or not) towards other groups and peoples.

In the West I don't see any state sanctioned racism, or even prejudice. And there are few actual racists (as opposed to people with prejudice/bigotry).

Then you haven't been listening to the state sponsored drivel pouring out of Canada's "first nations", have you?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fascism is authoritarian and ethnonationalist... that's all it is. It has NOTHING to do with liberalism. It is opposed to liberalism.

Liberalism is a belief in individual rights and freedoms. Free press and intact property rights. Something that fascism disavows.

Anarchy disavows any form of coercion on the part of the state whatsoever... and believes in only voluntary cooperation....

Conservatism is merely a statement of resisting change from the status quo. A desire to uphold current power structures.

Communism is a desire to implement a state run to empower the working class where the state controls the means of production.

I would agree that China is authoritarian and ethnonationalist... it pays lip service to communist values... but the working class seem to be dropping off their radar...

None of this makes much of a difference... China is a self interested player on the world stage... like every other... and a menace to many of it's own people.

It's people will bleed to free states taking their skills with them.

This is where you do not seem to see reality standing right in front of you. Liberalism (in this case upper case is appropriate) has drifted a long way left into collective values being far more prominent than individual rights and freedoms. Look at the the LPC here and Democrats in the USA. Both unarguably Liberal/liberal in the extreme. Their stock in trade includes things such as forced association violating freedoms of choice and association (closed shop unions). Take a look at what the champion of the left, PET, produced for a "bill of rights" for Canadians - very much excluding property rights. Our Liberal "free" press cost the taxpayers $2.2 Billion handed out by those who seem to be seeking a lot of influence (successfully) from the so-called "free" press. Those are, one might argue, not only characteristics of fascism, but very much the front page of any liberal playbook.

I have been confused about all of this left/right BS for decades, but finally had someone put it all right for me. IMHO, the difference between good and bad government, regardless of what name we put on them, is simply privilege. Governments of a bad nature dispense privilege to whoever for whatever reason. Good government simply would not do that - avoiding ALL of the problems with partisan interpretations of ideology. Do good government, and virtually any ideology can be fully functional.

Share on other sites

Then you haven't been listening to the state sponsored drivel pouring out of Canada's "first nations", have you?

I don't consider them to BE nations. They are small tribes, relics of another time, kept together through the cowardice and short-sightedness of a serious of governments afraid to rock the boat. Apparently people can come from all over the world, people who speak no English or French and have different alphabets, wildly different beliefs, values and religions and almost immediately adopt our ways and integrate. But natives aren't capable of any such feats. Natives are helpless children, cowering in fear of our culture, and need to be protected and kept like living museum exhibits on their tiny rural reserves because that's the only way they can survive.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Liberalism (in this case upper case is appropriate) has drifted a long way left into collective values being far more prominent than individual rights and freedoms. Look at the the LPC here and Democrats in the USA.

Liberalism is present in both "small c" conservatism and on the centre left.

It is a belief in free press, property rights and individual rights and freedoms.

More to the left you find the "progressives" or "cultural Marxists"... here you find the recent post-modernist mindset of cultural relativism and a denial of any moral truth... of equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity...

Here exists the mindset that we must eradicate any and all "oppressive" authorities.... this is where the rot has set in. All victim groups must be identified and protected from any harm real of perceived. Capitalism is suspect, as is the scientific method if it challenges the core tenets or egalitarianism.... there is a lot of crazy as you proceed down this pathway.

On the right you also find collectivist values creeping in ... protectionism... anti-science and conspiracy theory.

But the left fringe has captured media and universities in a way that the right fringe has not.

Return to classical liberalism is the route out of this insanity... I like to say that the left has a role to play in looking out for underdogs... but raising underdogs up as an unearned ruling class is where the left loses itself... The right has a role to play in maintaining healthy authority and healthy competition.... Both must protect individual rights and freedoms...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The press is not owned by the liberal party of Canada... not even the CBC is "liberal party" controlled...

We have property rights.... The Charter doesn't concern itself with these... you are right there.... and Charter mission creep here is absolutely a concern for real "small l" liberals.

Speech rights aren't really threatened... other than by twitter mobs.... plenty of freedom to blather on all over this country. Look at us!

Canada has plenty of individualism left... especially in the western provinces... and in the north....

Don't eulogize this nation prematurely.

The media has been subsidized by the Liberal Party of Canada, it is the Liberal Party media arm, whether you are too blind to see it or not.

Canada has no free speech, and never did, before or after the twitter mobs. Just because all speech hasn't been banned yet doesn't mean we have free speech dude, your standards are way too low.

We have no property rights, the Crown owns the land, we merely freehold it for them, you can't actually buy it.

The West being more individualistic doesn't make them big on individualism.

The North is not big on individualism it has become so dependent on federal government handouts to the point that many Canadians use the plight of the indigenous in the north as justification for Confederation to continue, so Ottawa continue bribing them into staying because they are too poor to go it alone. Me and Smitty call them Eskimo Communists.

Fugazi Country. You cling to something that never actually existed, except in the minds of the rubes. This "nation" deserved to eulogized long ago, right from it's shotgun marriage inception.